Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kona Lanes/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC).

Kona Lanes

 * Nominator(s): &mdash; ATinySliver /  ATalkPage  06:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the late, great Kona Lanes, still the subject of considerable reminiscence almost 11 years after its demolition. I believe the article is ready to represent Wikipedia's best. &mdash; ATinySliver /  ATalkPage  06:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment—per the instructions, the Peer Review needs to be closed before the FAC continues. Source review: no spotcheck is implied here. From my viewpoint, this is all minor stylistic stuff other than the reliability questions.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, any items listed in the "See also" section that are already linked in the body of the article need to be removed per MOS:LAYOUT. The section is used to list additional items not already linked.
 * I would move the commons boxes up to the top of the "External links" section and merge them using commons category multi. By moving them up, you'll eliminate a large chunk of whitespace by letting them float to the right of the links.
 * I would also remove the navbox from the bottom of the article because this article is not linked from it.
 * Kona Lanes is linked from Googie architecture; is there something else specifically I should do? &mdash; ATinySliver /  ATalkPage  08:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but it's not included in the navbox at the bottom of this article. Those other links in the navbox aren't as relevant to this article.  Imzadi 1979  →   08:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I must be missing something. Googie architecture is linked in the alph list, and Kona Lanes is listed there. I was under the impression that if an article refers specifically to any one subgenre, the navbox is supposed to be there. &mdash; ATinySliver /  ATalkPage  08:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we're talking around each other slightly. Kona Lakes is not in the navbox itself. Googie might be, so the navbox itself would be appropriate on the bottom of the Googie article, but Kona Lanes is not a "genre of modern architecture" so the navbox isn't appropriate here. If there were a navbox about examples of Googie, and if Kona Lanes was listed in that box, then that box should be on this article.  Imzadi 1979  →   09:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash; ATinySliver /  ATalkPage  09:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources look good on a reliability standpoint at first review, except two.
 * I'm curious if Critiki is user-generated content. If it is, it fails WP:RS and should not be used.
 * The eBay link is questionable to me, and I'd err on the side of not using it if possible.
 * Normally, I would agree; these are non-controversial and cannot be demonstrated any other way, IMHO. &mdash; ATinySliver /  ATalkPage  08:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: Okay, critiki is gone. In one case I've found a better link; in the other, I've removed it altogether for a statement that is essentially non-controversial. Still, I've e-mailed Tod at the American Sign Museum to see if I can get a new link. &mdash; ATinySliver /  ATalkPage  08:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: Done. &mdash; ATinySliver /  ATalkPage  06:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * FN 3 should really be redone using google maps instead of cite web.
 * FN4: normally I advise that if a newspaper title doesn't include its city of publication in the name that the location should be provided. Normally we would do this using location in the citation templates.
 * The locations should be repeated when the newspaper source is repeated.  Imzadi 1979  →   09:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash; ATinySliver /  ATalkPage  09:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * FN7, et al.: I would suggest converting that spaced hyphen in the headline to a colon to separate the head from the subhead.
 * FN9, et al.: the Los Angeles Times was linked in the first footnote so the link does not need to be repeated here. I would suggest that other repetitive links be removed per WP:OVERLINK.
 * FN 10, et al.: You've used Title Case for the article titles up to this point, but this one and others are in Sentence case. For the sake of consistency, I would use one or the other, but not both. This is a minor typographic change that like the hyphen-to-colon change above won't change the meaning, but it will polish this article's presentation.
 * That was intentional&mdash;I'm reproducing the titles as they appear originally. :) &mdash; ATinySliver /  ATalkPage  08:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not a good practice in what is supposed to be "our best work". I have copies of the style guides for APA, MLA, and The Chicago Manual of Style on my bookshelf here, and they'll all tell you to conform to the expected capitalization scheme they prescribe. Our MOS is more flexible in that it doesn't exactly prescribe one over the other, but it still endorses making minor typographic changes to produce consistency. Nothing is gained or lost by replicating how the sources capitalized their headlines, but the inconsistency here looks sloppy.  Imzadi 1979  →   08:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Everything else should be addressed, and my thanks for your assistance. :) &mdash; ATinySliver /  ATalkPage  08:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * FN13: I would simplify the headline to match what the content of the webpage lists instead of the HTML title. In this case, I would use "Police On My Back" as the title, and optionally 1 and Music.
 * FN20: Either that was published in the Daily Pilot or the Los Angeles Times, so one or the other only please.
 * FN24, et al.: the website names should be capitalized, even if they stylize their names in all lowercase.
 * FN26, et al.: If "Michael Ward Design" is the name of the organization that published that webpage, I would move that into publisher instead. Check through other footnotes to see if something is really the publisher instead of the name of a publication. (I'm thinking that in FN6, the "Professional Bowlers Association" should be the publisher and "PBA News and Articles" would be a website name, for example.)
 * Honestly, and I'll preface that this is a pushing personal preference a bit, but the ".com" stuff should be dropped from some of the names. The name of the website run by "Facebook, Inc." is "Facebook", not "Facebook.com". (Some websites do include the ".com" in their names, but Facebook and eBay [watch those caps] do not.) What is currently FN 26 should just be credited to Michael Ward Design + Art and omit a website. There are no good, solid rules, but rather a gut-level instinct for discerning the distinction between when a website has a recognizable or distinct name separate from its publisher, and which is the better-known name to use. That does mean you won't always have an italicized entry in the citation, like FN3 on Interstate 196, which is an online database published by the Michigan Department of Transportation. Another example would be FN 48 on M-28 (Michigan highway), a news article from a TV station; the station is a publisher while one of their programs would be a publication.  Imzadi 1979  →   09:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash; ATinySliver /  ATalkPage  09:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Something I see that I missed above, but links to PDFs are normally indicated explicitly. Not all browsers display the little icon for a PDF, so I was always told to add PDF to the citation template so that readers will always be aware. (This is also helpful for URLs that don't end in, which is how the server "knows" to display the icon.)  Imzadi 1979   →   08:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fixed presently. :) &mdash; ATinySliver /  ATalkPage  08:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "PDF" is an acronym for "Portable Document Format", so really it should be in all caps.  Imzadi 1979  →   09:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash; ATinySliver /  ATalkPage  09:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is extremely short, there's an early section, decline section, but what about peak years? Also, there are at least two facebook refs. I hardly consider facebook reliable.   HalfGig   talk  00:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added the only other detail I can find that isn't outright WP:CRUFT. The facebook refs are from the sources' official pages. At this point, there is all but literally nothing else I can do. &mdash; ATinySliver /  ATalkPage  02:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem is that it's not comprehensive. IMHO this wouldn't pass a Good Article candidacy. As for facebook (which IMHO is as bad a source as Angelfire), the first one about Costa Mesta only gives an address. It's mainly a bunch of posts about people talking about the Costa Mesa business. How does that support the claim in the article? As for facebook ref two, it says "We recently provided a minor contribution to a Wikipedia article about Kona Lanes. Amazing all that's now at our fingertips, eh?" then it quotes the wiki article. Is anyone calling that a reliable source? I think not. Sorry, but this article is not near ready for featured status. Personally I'd classify as Start class. Plus is ebay a reliable reference?  HalfGig   talk  02:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * By point: 1. Tavern+Bowl in Costa Mesa is not yet open ("Spring 2014");
 * 2. It appears you didn't read through. Tod Swormstedt, the founder and operator of ASM, replied to my request for detail on the official facebook page (linked at the bottom of all pages at signmuseum.org and, therefore, reliable); and
 * 3. The cited sentence reads "Knickknacks were still being sold on eBay more than ten years later", which links to proof of the statement. It could be just me, but I found it remarkable that items from a bowling center razed more than ten years prior were still being offered for sale, and the link is its only possible source. :D &mdash; ATinySliver /  ATalkPage  05:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: I found a better link for Tavern+Bowl, it'll be added presently. Meantime, I value your opinion and those of everyone else who is kind enough to assist in making this article and Wikipedia as a whole better, so I'll beat back the temptation to be offended by terming it "Start class." xDDD &mdash; ATinySliver /  ATalkPage  05:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the other FAC I commented on yesterday: Featured article candidates/Rainbow trout/archive1, article Rainbow trout. Compare the level of detail and quality level of refs in that to yours. That should help show why I feel this Kona Lanes article is not yet ready for FAC. I did not mean to offend, I was just trying to explain why I hold the view that I do.  HalfGig   talk  12:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges, if you'll forgive me. Rainbow trout still exist&mdash;fortunately, we humans haven't cast them into history just yet&mdash;and sources are myriad. Kona Lanes went the way of the dodo nearly 11 years ago, which leaves archives and reminiscences and an iconic roadside sign preserved in a wonderful museum 2,500 miles away, and literally nothing else. The article features 33 sources, 22 of which are from newsprint (and a 23rd a collection of news articles and "letters to the editor"). With the possible exception of my prose, which is necessarily journalistic, this article is as good as it may ever get&mdash;absent someone writing a book. xD
 * Perhaps a better comparison, if only slightly, is another article I'm preparing for FAC. Ike Altgens was a very short FA in 2007 and a mess of irrelevance and POV in 2013. Today, it's much more comprehensive and meticulously cited (though that's still in progress). &mdash; ATinySliver /  ATalkPage  23:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Halfgig. Contemporary newspaper accounts should allow you to expand more on the key years. I doubt this structure got only coverage in 2010–13. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You would think... xD &mdash; ATinySliver /  ATalkPage  08:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: "Peak Years" is fleshed out a bit, but I have to admit that it borders on the peripheral. WP:CRUFT precludes pretty much anything else. &mdash; ATinySliver /  ATalkPage  09:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Final update: that's it; search is done, nothing else specific to Kona still exists that passes WP:N and WP:CRUFT, and I've added everything I can tie in per WP:REL. If that's not good enough, I'll request withdrawal. Meantime, thanks to everyone for your help and input. :) &mdash; ATinySliver /  ATalkPage  08:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- I scanned this article myself early on, purely out of interest in the subject, and did feel that the middle years were lacking detail; hopefully reliable sources will turn up and this can return at a later date but in the meantime I'm archiving it per the nominator's withdrawal request. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.